So we go for clarity.
The 'right' is concerned about the size of government, and the amount of money being gobbled up by government. It is concerned about the size of the debt and the size of the deficit. I resonate well with all of that. I think many, many people on the 'left' would resonate with all of that.
But the biggest area, by far, of discretionary spending is spending on the military and security, whether it is the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, military support to Israel, space program, nuclear weapons program, or homeland security. With few exceptions, there is no evidence that this spending is making the world or the US a safer place. There is much evidence that this spending is making the world and the US an unsafer place, in that this spending is making more people enemies of the US. http://pewglobal.org/
On the other hand, there is much evidence that greater equality -> happier people -> greater security. I agree that social programs promoting equality may erode individual freedom, and for that reason the 'right' opposes them. I think I understand that. But viewed with a security lens, the evidence is pretty strong that equity tends towards greater security. Just one of many examples http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/
So why then does the right, in its determination and drive to limit and reduce the size of government and the amount of government spending, focus on social programs rather than the military?
Incidentally, it was Eisenhower, the republican, who first warned of the military-industrial complex. Why has the modern right abandoned the insights of military men like Eisenhower and John McCain?
Why do you, who has said you oppose the US spending on the military, identify with the right, when changing policy in this one area alone would probably do more to make the world a better place than anything else?
Net, with the military I really don't identify with either left or right. I like the general bias to de-emphasize military spending that the left has. I am in favor of a platform that would suggest the US pull out of almost all of its foreign basis, and pull entirely out of the United Nations.
ReplyDeleteHowever, unlike the left, there are three big issues I identify more with the right on the military. First, I believe after 30+ years of a flawed appeasment strategy with the Russians from 1945-1980, which saw communist power increase, i thought Reagan's military buildup proved effective in making the World a much better place. So in this way, I more trust the right when it comes to big security issues which might arise. Second, the right is more pro-Israel, and while I struggle with the issue, it certainly seems that nations will be judged by how they treat the Jewish nation according to almost any reading of the Bible. Third, I very much dislike having US give up control of military to international bodies like the UN, which the left appears too anxious to do.
I am not a Bible scholar but isn't your statement regarding the treatment of the jewish nation more to do with the old testament? I hold more to the view that in Christ there is neither jew nor gentile. The chosen people concept does not seem to come through in the New Testament, i.e. in the NT people choose Jesus. It is the people who have the choice of identifying with God as Father, not God choosing a special group.
ReplyDeleteI am not completely clear, and I have struggled with this for many years, but seems to me that the new testament enables gentils to be grafted into the promise of God, along with believing Jews. Obviously I am not a scholar either, and i am not clear if i believe in an implied dual-covenant (one for Jews and one for Christians) but I believe that the treatment of the jewish nation was to remain.
ReplyDeleteI dont know how to better resolve, as we can each quote Bible versuses, but I would love some insight.